Rules Revisions (1/3/05 and 1/5/05)

01/03/2005 11:30:35 AM · #29

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

If you read the rule in addition to this announcement, you will see that these will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I personally believe your specific case is a textbook example of a disqualification that would not count toward this penalty system. Such waivers will be extremely rare, but due to this type of disqualification they have been provided for.

Remember also that we have included no penalty for a first disqualification -- this was done to further reduce the chance that users are suspended for honest mistakes made in good faith.

-Terry

I did read the rule which included the waiver Terry, but it didn`t clarify what would be included in the waiver..hence my scenarios.
What bothers me most is that we are prepared to allow one indescretion regardless of the intent and then hit down hard......again, regardless of the intent.
Surely, it`s the intent that matters.I mentioned earlier about the DQ`s for breaching the spirit of the rules. Now as this is largely down to the opinion of individuals...why is that to be included as punishable?

I have never knowingly or deliberately broken any ruling regarding submissions, but I could see a situation emerging where I could find myself being punished by this system and if that happened, I would be so angry, I would definitely finish with the site.

By all means use these measures against deliberate cheaters..but where there is an element of doubt...surely the DQ is enough.

01/03/2005 12:11:10 PM · #30

I agree, whole-heartedly, with every point geewhy makes.
Well said, er...written.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/03/2005 01:59:27 PM · #31

How about this. What if the rules said "may" instead of being written in stone. The S.C. does an excellent job of making decisions about DQs This is way more extreme than a DQ, and since the members will already be familiar with the information since they had to evaluate for the DQ anyway, I would suggest that these rules be invoked on an individual basis, also. The more punative this thing becomes, the more people may challenge it. Punishment rarely results in increasing the desired behavior.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/03/2005 02:20:32 PM · #32

Originally posted by geewhy:

......... Surely, it`s the intent that matters.....

I agree with that, but the problem is in the "grey" areas.
For example the rule that says you're allowed to clone out minor distractions - just exactly where do you draw the line there? I often worry whether MY idea of minor is the same as the SC's view.

SDW65's idea of leaving dq'ed pics on display in the results (AND the voting) pages would help us all to learn about the subtleties of those rules as well as serve as reminders and warnings about all the rules.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

01/03/2005 02:36:25 PM · #33

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by geewhy:
......... Surely, it`s the intent that matters.....

I agree with that, but the problem is in the "grey" areas.
For example the rule that says you're allowed to clone out minor distractions - just exactly where do you draw the line there? I often worry whether MY idea of minor is the same as the SC's view.

SDW65's idea of leaving dq'ed pics on display in the results (AND the voting) pages would help us all to learn about the subtleties of those rules as well as serve as reminders and warnings about all the rules.

Yes, you`ve just highlighted one of my concerns...the grey areas.
I`ve absolutely no problem with the sort of example you describe being DQ`d...or even displayed after the challenge ends..it`s the further punishment that`s now going to be meted out, regardless of whether you intended to cheat or not that concerns me.

coolhar

01/03/2005 02:53:00 PM · #34

Originally posted by KDO:

Punishment rarely results in increasing the desired behavior.

I find this to be an odd notion. I think punishment usually leads to an increase in the desired behavior.

In the case of the new DQ rules I think any serious dpc'er with a DQ in the last 25 entries is going to be very careful about not breaking the rules; and if they have any sense at all they will steer a wide berth of the grey areas.

geewhy, unless you are planning on trying to "push the envelope" you probably have nothing to worry about. Just keep up the good work and your 25 will pass in time. If you happen to get another DQ you can always apply to SC for a waiver.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/03/2005 03:31:44 PM · #35

Originally posted by coolhar:

geewhy, unless you are planning on trying to "push the envelope" you probably have nothing to worry about. Just keep up the good work and your 25 will pass in time. If you happen to get another DQ you can always apply to SC for a waiver.

Harvey.... I`m not trying to cheat anybody..but as my recent experience showed,I could still end up being treated the same way as someone who deliberately cheats.Where`s the equality in that?

By all means DQ & hammer the cheaters...but for the obvious mistakes and submissions that fall foul of the "grey area" syndrome a simple DQ should suffice.. surely?
The more I look at this the less it seems to be about punishing cheaters.It seems to be more about punishing people who waste the site`s time reviewing images for DQ purposes.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/03/2005 03:55:08 PM · #36

Originally posted by geewhy:

...but for the obvious mistakes and ... a simple DQ should suffice.. surely?

And probably will, but how does one go about proving intent, or that it was an "obvious mistake" other than the mistake of submitting it to that challenge?

We've already said we can make exceptions when the circumstances warrant. What else can you be asking for besides a clear rule with an allowance for exceptions?

I think you'll just have to trust that we will continue to apply the rules fairly and equitably, at least until the system proves to be ineffective.

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/03/2005 03:59:43 PM · #37

Originally posted by geewhy:

Originally posted by coolhar:

geewhy, unless you are planning on trying to "push the envelope" you probably have nothing to worry about. Just keep up the good work and your 25 will pass in time. If you happen to get another DQ you can always apply to SC for a waiver.

Harvey.... I`m not trying to cheat anybody..but as my recent experience showed,I could still end up being treated the same way as someone who deliberately cheats.Where`s the equality in that?

By all means DQ & hammer the cheaters...but for the obvious mistakes and submissions that fall foul of the "grey area" syndrome a simple DQ should suffice.. surely?
The more I look at this the less it seems to be about punishing cheaters.It seems to be more about punishing people who waste the site`s time reviewing images for DQ purposes.

Actually, CJ's response to you stated that you most likely WOULD NOT be punished for such a DQ. The point of the rules revision isn't so that we can punish and drive into the ground anyone we happen to see. It's so that there is some sort of accountability for users who repeatedly violate the rules, neglect to upload original files in order to preserve voting averages, etc.

The reason that the SC is around to monitor the actions as they are applied is so that we can take into account what the DQ was for...it's not just a mechanical, automatic result. We understand that people can make honest mistakes. We've provided allowance for this with a "free" DQ. And if you're unsure about what you're doing, there are nearly 20 Site Council members, as well as a whole forum full of people who are ready and willing to answer questions. Let's not go too overboard with this awful punishment/hammer into the ground/hit down hard stuff.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

01/03/2005 04:13:40 PM · #38

Originally posted by geewhy:

I don't think that you cheated, or that you ever would. You don't need to. But I think you are worrying too much about something that hasn't happened to you yet, probably won't happen to you, and for which the new DQ rules give you an avenue for appeal if the unlikely does happen to you. The fact that you tried to get your concern about that DQ'ed image addressed ahead of time shows that you are aware, concerned and careful about complying with the rules.

01/03/2005 05:00:30 PM · #39

Originally posted by coolhar:

Harvey, you are absolutely right,I never would try to cheat and I`m not just worried for myself, but for the site in general because I think that this is too heavy handed and is going to lead to a lot of unrest in the long term.
I`ve had enough experience in the past of validation requests on my images to know that I could find myself in this position very easily through simple error...and I don`t just mean mine.
However, I`m not going to repeat myself..it would appear that this is going ahead..I just hope that I`m wrong in my assessment.

leaf

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/03/2005 06:03:15 PM · #40

sounds like a good idea... it will save the site council some time, and make people think twice about using dpc just to annoy people.

eggv

Canon EOS-1D Mark IIn

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/03/2005 06:21:43 PM · #41

Why don't we have a No Edit (no faux-toshopping) Challenge every once in a while so us newbies can see what needs to be comming out of the camera to begin with.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/03/2005 06:26:56 PM · #42

We have traditionally avoided no-edit challenges since what comes out of the camera varies by camera make and model -- different cameras do different amounts and types of automatic processing in-camera. The Basic editing rules are intended to be just enough to level the playing field.

-Terry

eggv

Canon EOS-1D Mark IIn

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/03/2005 06:49:23 PM · #43

Thanks Terry, but were talking advanced editing here and this ammendment seems like it will allow the rules to be pushed even further.

For those reading we have never requested a DQ.

Message edited by author 2005-01-03 18:50:40.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/03/2005 06:52:46 PM · #44

Originally posted by eggv:

Thanks Terry, but were talking advanced editing here and this ammendment seems like it will allow the rules to be pushed even further.

For those reading we have never requested a DQ.

I would think if anything, it will be the opposite since the penalties for repeat violations are increased.

-Terry

eggv

Canon EOS-1D Mark IIn

01/03/2005 06:58:25 PM · #45

<-----Re reads ammendment..... goes and sits in corner with dunce cap on.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

01/04/2005 01:38:48 AM · #46

Coolhar,
Punishment leads to a decrease in certain behaviors, sometimes. But along with that it always builds resentment and a sense of alienation.

That's why reinforcement is so powerful. If it weren't, we wouldn't all act like complete fools over a little blue ribbon icon? (she wrote facetiously.)

coolhar

01/04/2005 08:41:51 AM · #47

Originally posted by KDO:

In the current instance the punishment is merely a tool. The goal is deterence. Suspensions, for repeated or intentional DQs, and other infractions, have been used here in the past. I see the new rules as merely a more formalized version of past practice. By making it a little more standardized, by allowing the general community to know more about it, the aim is to increase deterence. Promulgating them makes it more efficient to enforce. Remember that this is pretty much an all volunteer community. The value of convincing a bystander to be more careful about complying with the rules, or educating her/him as to how the rules are administered far outweighs any value to be found in forcing an offender to sit out a month's worth of challenges.

Hopefully this change will lead to less infractions, less DQs, and not very many suspensions at all. Personally, I would have added a little more in the way of public attention to DQs and suspensions, not to humble the offender but to publicize and deter. Simply announcing how many DQs (and suspensions, if any) take place and for what type of infractions, without naming names, should increase deterence.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/04/2005 12:14:05 PM · #48

If it is simply educating, why is punishment necessary? See my previous post regarding adding may to the rules so the S.C. can make the call whether educating or punishing is needed.

Canon EOS-20D

01/04/2005 12:19:28 PM · #49

Originally posted by KDO:

If it is simply educating, why is punishment necessary? See my previous post regarding adding may to the rules so the S.C. can make the call whether educating or punishing is needed.

That provision has already been made.